ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

rwolfort · 30 March 2014, 01:02 PM

My original rolex is a 16610 and I find that I don't wear it anymore, opting for bigger watches and a the ceramic dial models.

What are the advantages to the SubC?
I'm thinking the hollow links on the 16610 also have turned me off.

Thanks for the opinions in advance…

Der Meister · 30 March 2014, 01:07 PM

The 116610 is big for 40, the lugs are larger and it you search a bigger watch..go for it.

Joelmor · 30 March 2014, 01:10 PM

Yes!
Joel

ses4me · 30 March 2014, 01:13 PM

Much bigger, comparable to my 41 and 42 mm watches.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dr. Robert · 30 March 2014, 01:14 PM

Yes & heavier!
(I've been wearing my brother in law 's 116610 for a week now

ltmgeller · 30 March 2014, 01:20 PM

I can't speak about the subs but my 116710 wears much bigger than my 16710.

superdog · 30 March 2014, 01:26 PM

Def a different wrist presence.

I really like the feel of the subc.

I might even prefer the look of the old style, by a hair.

But the feel of the more modern pieces is what wins me over.

sportsmaven20 · 30 March 2014, 01:32 PM

Certainly the SubC wears chunkier and heavier, but because of the larger hour markers on the SubC, it makes the dial look smaller than the 16610. I know they are both the same 40mm size, it is just a visual difference IMHO.

beachbum · 30 March 2014, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superdog

Def a different wrist presence.

I really like the feel of the subc.

I might even prefer the look of the old style, by a hair.

But the feel of the more modern pieces is what wins me over.

X1000! It's night and day IMO. The weight and over all feel of the SubC is just awesome

14060m · 30 March 2014, 01:43 PM

Subc for the win

GradyPhilpott · 30 March 2014, 01:55 PM

116610 is a big hunk of steel.

Armyguy03 · 30 March 2014, 02:13 PM

Yup...disliked it and traded

CWIN · 30 March 2014, 02:45 PM

The ceramic version wears much larger. I much prefer the newer models and the glide lock bracelet is amazing.

crowncollection · 30 March 2014, 05:50 PM

Yes it wears bigger

jjnd08 · 30 March 2014, 07:34 PM

Yup. Flipped my LVC after 3 months.

bayerische · 30 March 2014, 08:55 PM

Yes it does.

Andad · 30 March 2014, 09:23 PM

My SubC (114060) is the same weight as my 16600 SD.

Andad · 30 March 2014, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

116610 is a big hunk of steel.

Hmmmm,

The OP wrote SubC not SubdateC.

This is becoming confusing on many threads.

melons · 30 March 2014, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWIN

The ceramic version wears much larger. I much prefer the newer models and the glide lock bracelet is amazing.

Agreed. I recent traded my 16610 for a 114060 and couldn't be happier. Yes the SubC wears larger, but only slightly so for me. Yes the lugs are larger, but after 24 hours of wear, its unnoticeable. For me, the SubC has been updated to take advantage of today's technology. The bezel, bracelet and clasp are welcome upgrades and overall the watch has a modern look and feel while retaining it's heritage. YMMV.

stuartgholmes · 30 March 2014, 11:29 PM

I prefer the feel of the 16610, but love the look of the SubC. The sub C wears a lot like my Omega Planet Ocean (heavy), and they both push on a nerve in my wrist that aches after awhile. Can't have it all I guess.

melons · 31 March 2014, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartgholmes

I prefer the feel of the 16610, but love the look of the SubC. The sub C wears a lot like my Omega Planet Ocean (heavy), and they both push on a nerve in my wrist that aches after awhile. Can't have it all I guess.

Having had the 45.5 PO, I can relate. The PO left me because of it's weight on the bracelet, which Is far more than the SubC ND. However, once I got the bracelet adjusted correctly I prefer the 114060 to the 16610.

nickb732 · 31 March 2014, 12:04 AM

Yes definitely the lugs are huge!

Aventura · 31 March 2014, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

116610 is a big hunk of steel.

All are hunk steel pieces and they are selling you like gold or platinum.
And they will never get the accuracy of a quartz watch of U $ S 20.
And I clarified that I am from the herd because I have a steel watch worth more than $ 9,000. Such is life.
My grandmother had a saying: "We live lifelong learning and die fools"

TempoKing · 31 March 2014, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crowncollection

Yes it wears bigger

I agree..

Grey.Coupe · 31 March 2014, 01:43 AM

I noticed it is slightly larger, a bit heavier on the wrist. I noticed the difference in the lugs at first, but no longer. So, not a lot. It's comfortable. Some of the weight is in the clasp.

Psmith · 31 March 2014, 06:43 AM

Have owned both - the differences are pretty marginal and the Sub C is neither a big nor heavy watch imho. I think it wears a tad on the small side in fact. With the bracelet properly sized, the Glidelock clasp makes all-condition comfort a breeze

Many people could not tell the difference between a 16610 and 116610 from a couple of feet away

cityscape · 31 March 2014, 07:09 AM

absolutely

georgew · 31 March 2014, 10:41 AM

Yes, wears bigger and it is - in lug size/shape and overall weight of the watch. The case shape is different too which affects it's "wear feel" as well - at least for some (including me). I much prefer the 14060, 16610, and 16710 designs - and now with glidelocks on them they are perfect! (again, for me). It comes down to what you like and is comfortable on you. enjoy!

Ravager135 · 31 March 2014, 11:05 AM

My 114060 wears closer in comparison to my 216570 than my 16610.

melons · 31 March 2014, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psmith

have owned both - the differences are pretty marginal and the sub c is neither a big nor heavy watch imho. I think it wears a tad on the small side in fact. With the bracelet properly sized, the glidelock clasp makes all-condition comfort a breeze

many people could not tell the difference between a 16610 and 116610 from a couple of feet away

+1

30 March 2014, 01:02 PM	#1
rwolfort "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: metairie, la Posts: 78	Opinion: Does the SubC wear bigger than than the 16610? My original rolex is a 16610 and I find that I don't wear it anymore, opting for bigger watches and a the ceramic dial models. What are the advantages to the SubC? I'm thinking the hollow links on the 16610 also have turned me off. Thanks for the opinions in advance…

30 March 2014, 01:14 PM	#5
Dr. Robert 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Real Name: Bob Location: U.S.A. Watch: 1655 Posts: 64,294	Yes & heavier! (I've been wearing my brother in law 's 116610 for a week now __________________ Founder & Card Carrying Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

30 March 2014, 01:26 PM	#7
superdog 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Real Name: Seth Location: nj Watch: Omega Posts: 24,834	Def a different wrist presence. I really like the feel of the subc. I might even prefer the look of the old style, by a hair. But the feel of the more modern pieces is what wins me over. __________________ If happiness is a state of mind, why look anywhere else for it? IG: gsmotorclub IG: thesawcollection (Both mostly just car stuff)

30 March 2014, 01:43 PM	#10
14060m "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: USA Watch: 116610 , 16233 Posts: 1,802	Subc for the win __________________

30 March 2014, 01:55 PM	#11
GradyPhilpott 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Mexico Watch: Seiko #SRK047 Posts: 34,460	116610 is a big hunk of steel. __________________ JJ Inaugural TRF $50 Watch Challenge Winner

30 March 2014, 01:07 PM	#2
Der Meister Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Somewhere Posts: 244	The 116610 is big for 40, the lugs are larger and it you search a bigger watch..go for it.

30 March 2014, 01:10 PM	#3
Joelmor Banned Join Date: Jul 2007 Real Name: Joel Location: NJ Watch: WG Daytona YG DD40 Posts: 267	Yes! Joel

30 March 2014, 01:13 PM	#4
ses4me "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Chesterfield, NJ Posts: 59	Much bigger, comparable to my 41 and 42 mm watches. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

30 March 2014, 01:20 PM	#6
ltmgeller 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Real Name: Mike Location: New York Watch: Rolex Posts: 22,585	I can't speak about the subs but my 116710 wears much bigger than my 16710.

30 March 2014, 01:32 PM	#8
sportsmaven20 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Randy Location: USA Watch: Rolex Posts: 1,925	Certainly the SubC wears chunkier and heavier, but because of the larger hour markers on the SubC, it makes the dial look smaller than the 16610. I know they are both the same 40mm size, it is just a visual difference IMHO.

30 March 2014, 02:13 PM	#12
Armyguy03 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: DM[V] Watch: 16710 \| 16600 Posts: 3,546	Yup...disliked it and traded __________________ Member of the Global Association of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

30 March 2014, 02:45 PM	#13
CWIN "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Real Name: Chris Location: San Diego Watch: Patek, AP, Rolex Posts: 4,449	The ceramic version wears much larger. I much prefer the newer models and the glide lock bracelet is amazing.

30 March 2014, 05:50 PM	#14
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,216	Yes it wears bigger __________________ watches many

30 March 2014, 07:34 PM	#15
jjnd08 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: United States Posts: 8,615	Yup. Flipped my LVC after 3 months.

30 March 2014, 08:55 PM	#16
bayerische "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Real Name: Andreas Location: Margaritaville Watch: Smurf Posts: 19,879	Yes it does. __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

30 March 2014, 09:23 PM	#17
Andad 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Eddie Location: Australia Watch: A few. Posts: 37,534	My SubC (114060) is the same weight as my 16600 SD. __________________ E

30 March 2014, 11:29 PM	#20
stuartgholmes "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Real Name: Stuart Location: Daphne, AL Watch: SubC 116610LN Posts: 53	I prefer the feel of the 16610, but love the look of the SubC. The sub C wears a lot like my Omega Planet Ocean (heavy), and they both push on a nerve in my wrist that aches after awhile. Can't have it all I guess.

31 March 2014, 12:04 AM	#22
nickb732 "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Real Name: Nicholas Location: UK Posts: 2,630	Yes definitely the lugs are huge! __________________ Nick

31 March 2014, 01:43 AM	#25
Grey.Coupe "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: NC, USA Posts: 555	I noticed it is slightly larger, a bit heavier on the wrist. I noticed the difference in the lugs at first, but no longer. So, not a lot. It's comfortable. Some of the weight is in the clasp.

31 March 2014, 06:43 AM	#26
Psmith "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Real Name: Clive Location: Exoplanet Watch: spring-driven Posts: 38,856	Have owned both - the differences are pretty marginal and the Sub C is neither a big nor heavy watch imho. I think it wears a tad on the small side in fact. With the bracelet properly sized, the Glidelock clasp makes all-condition comfort a breeze Many people could not tell the difference between a 16610 and 116610 from a couple of feet away __________________

31 March 2014, 07:09 AM	#27
cityscape "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2013 Real Name: Chris Location: NYC Posts: 82	absolutely

31 March 2014, 10:41 AM	#28
georgew 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: George Location: USA Watch: mostly Subs Posts: 804	Yes, wears bigger and it is - in lug size/shape and overall weight of the watch. The case shape is different too which affects it's "wear feel" as well - at least for some (including me). I much prefer the 14060, 16610, and 16710 designs - and now with glidelocks on them they are perfect! (again, for me). It comes down to what you like and is comfortable on you. enjoy!

31 March 2014, 11:05 AM	#29
Ravager135 "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: New Jersey Posts: 4,224	My 114060 wears closer in comparison to my 216570 than my 16610.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)